With 3D printing, in society, most goods will be designed on computers and “manufactured” in the homes of consumers, which over time will reduce both the costs and environmental impacts of transportation.
When describing a strange dream that you had, there are several ways to go about it and this is one:
- First introduce yourself into the story.
- Talk about how you fell asleep.
- Slowly guide the text into the dream.
- Talk about the different scenes in the dream and end it on the scene that felt the strangest to you.
- Explain why this was strange.
Writing an essay can be academic dishonesty so I will walk you through how to write one yourself.
<h3><u>Steps in the essay</u></h3>
Introducing yourself does not mean saying your name. You can simply use the pronoun, "I." Talk about what you were doing, for instance, walking home, or watching television.
Then talk about how you fell asleep - could be in your bed, on a seat on the bus, or even on a sitting room couch.
Then begin to talk about how the dream started. Talk about how the dream began and then progressed till you get to the strange events.
Talk about these strange events and end on the strangest; then explain why this scene was strange if it isn't apparent.
<h3><u>Conclusion</u></h3>
It is best to either use little detail or a lot of detail, avoid the middle ground.
Find out more on strange dreams at brainly.com/question/4295383.
Answer:
a resident of New York, is visited by a process officer at her is owned by a woman fro Maryland.
Clark v. Arizona, 548 U.S. 735 (2006), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the constitutionality of the insanity defense used by Arizona.
Clark v. Arizona
Seal of the United States Supreme Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued April 19, 2006
Decided June 29, 2006
Full case name
Eric Michael Clark v. State of Arizona
Docket no.
05-5966
Citations
548 U.S. 735 (more)
126 S. Ct. 2709; 165 L. Ed. 2d 842
Case history
Prior
Defendant convicted, Coconino County Superior Court, Sept. 3, 2003; affirmed, Ariz. Ct. App., Jan. 25, 2005; review denied, Ariz., May 25, 2005; cert. granted, 126 S. Ct. 797 (2005).
Holding
Due process does not prohibit Arizona's use of an insanity test stated solely in terms of the capacity to tell whether an act charged as a crime was right or wrong. The state could also constitutionally limit a defendant's evidence of mental defect to only what is relevant to that insanity test, even when mens rea is an element of the charged crime. Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
John P. Stevens · Antonin Scalia
Anthony Kennedy · David Souter
Clarence Thomas · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer · Samuel Alito
Case opinions
Majority
Souter, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito; Breyer except parts III-B, III-C, and ultimate disposition
Concur/dissent
Breyer
Dissent
Kennedy, joined by Stevens, Ginsburg
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. XIV; Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-502(A)
The Court affirmed the murder conviction of a man with paranoid schizophrenia for killing a police officer.
The man had argued that his inability to understand the nature of his acts at the time that they were committed should be a sufficient basis for showing that he lacked the requisite mental state required as an element of the charged crime.
The Court upheld Arizona's restriction of admissible mental health evidence only to the issue of insanity and not to show that the defendant did not possess the required mental intent level necessary to satisfy an element of the crime. Evidence is admissible only to show that the defendant was insane at the time of the crime's commission.
In this case, the defendant knew right from wrong and so he could not qualify under Arizona's insanity defense.
